The State of the Science
This giant skull, embedded in solid rock, presents several problems for materialists.
"And it may seem harmless to you now that its been exposed. But, did you know that over 500 people obtained their PhD's by writing their thesis on "the Piltdown Man"? I dare say, no one took back those PhDs after it was exposed, and those people taught hundreds of thousands of people." Wyatt, Newletter Five [This is an out and out lie. Not one single thesis on Piltdown man has ever been produced.]
In 1982 Dr. Lyall Watson stated: "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!" [This also a lie. Some have speculated that this is based on something someone said a long time ago.]
Likewise, a 1994 article in Time Magazine admitted that: "Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn't fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate."[This is hyperbole, but at least it can't be called an out and out lie.]
Prior to more recent developments of techniques for dating by means of radioactive materials, there were fundamentally only two methods of estimating the age of a fossil. The first was the geological level at which the specimen was found.
The second, applying more particularly to human fossils, was the general appearance: whether apish and "primitive," or essentially like modern man. These two criteria are still largely applied, since the majority of the more ancient remains of early man are completely fossilized and C-14 methods of dating cannot be used.[This is false. Apes are not more primitive than men, and ape fossils are not necessarily older than proto-human fossils.]
But it has long been recognized that if the fossil remains of early man are arranged according to their degree of primitiveness, the order will be found to contradict the series arranged on the basis of antiquity as established by the levels at which they are found." [This is also a lie. Many different techniques are used to date fossils, and they agree remarkably well.]
